{"id":25574,"date":"2024-09-12T08:46:38","date_gmt":"2024-09-12T06:46:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/?p=25574"},"modified":"2024-09-12T08:46:39","modified_gmt":"2024-09-12T06:46:39","slug":"sollicitation-du-salarie-pendant-son-arret-maladie-attention-au-prejudice-necessaire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/sollicitation-du-salarie-pendant-son-arret-maladie-attention-au-prejudice-necessaire\/","title":{"rendered":"Sollicitation du salari\u00e9 pendant son arr\u00eat maladie : attention au pr\u00e9judice \u00ab n\u00e9cessaire \u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Dans un arr\u00eat publi\u00e9 du 4 septembre dernier, la Cour de cassation a jug\u00e9 que le fait pour l\u2019employeur d\u2019avoir sollicit\u00e9 une salari\u00e9e pendant son arr\u00eat maladie lui ouvrait droit \u00e0 <\/span><strong style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">r\u00e9paration sans qu\u2019elle n&rsquo;ait \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer avoir subi un pr\u00e9judice<\/strong><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> (n\u00b023-15.944).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la salari\u00e9e s\u2019\u00e9tait trouv\u00e9e en arr\u00eat maladie entre 2014 et 2015. Pendant cette p\u00e9riode, son employeur l\u2019a sollicit\u00e9 <\/span><strong style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">trois fois<\/strong><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> pour accomplir, ponctuellement et sur une dur\u00e9e limit\u00e9e, une t\u00e2che professionnelle. Dans le cadre du contentieux en r\u00e9siliation judiciaire qu\u2019elle a initi\u00e9, la salari\u00e9e sollicitait des dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats en r\u00e9paration du manquement de l\u2019employeur.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">La Cour d\u2019appel de Poitiers l\u2019a d\u00e9bout\u00e9e de cette demande au motif qu\u2019elle ne rapportait pas la preuve du pr\u00e9judice r\u00e9sultant dudit manquement. Elle se r\u00e9f\u00e9rait ainsi \u00e0 la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, tendant \u00e0 revenir sur la r\u00e9paration du pr\u00e9judice \u00ab\u00a0<\/span><em style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">n\u00e9cessaire<\/em><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">\u00a0\u00bb, au terme de laquelle l\u2019octroi de dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats suppose, au pr\u00e9alable, de rapporter la preuve d\u2019un pr\u00e9judice (Cass. soc., 13 septembre 2017, n\u00b016-13.578).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">La Cour de cassation censure cette d\u00e9cision. Elle juge que \u00ab\u00a0<\/span><em style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">l\u2019employeur, tenu d\u2019une obligation de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 envers les salari\u00e9s, doit prendre les mesures n\u00e9cessaires pour assurer la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 et prot\u00e9ger la sant\u00e9 physique et mentale des travailleurs. <\/em><strong style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"><em>Lorsqu\u2019il confie des t\u00e2ches \u00e0 un travailleur, il doit prendre en consid\u00e9ration les capacit\u00e9s de ce travailleur en mati\u00e8re de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 et de sant\u00e9<\/em><\/strong><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">.\u00a0\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Dans ces conditions, \u00ab\u00a0<\/span><strong style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"><em><u>le seul constat du manquement de l&#8217;employeur en ce qu&rsquo;il a fait travailler un salari\u00e9 pendant son arr\u00eat de travail pour maladie ouvre droit \u00e0 r\u00e9paration<\/u><\/em><\/strong><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">\u00a0\u00bb.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">La Haute Cour consacre ainsi un nouveau cas de r\u00e9paration automatique du pr\u00e9judice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/juri\/id\/JURITEXT000050192482?init=true&#038;page=1&#038;query=23-15.944&#038;searchField=ALL&#038;tab_selection=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/juri\/id\/JURITEXT000050192482?init=true&#038;page=1&#038;query=23-15.944&#038;searchField=ALL&#038;tab_selection=all<\/a><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dans un arr\u00eat publi\u00e9 du 4 septembre dernier, la Cour de cassation a jug\u00e9 que le fait pour l\u2019employeur d\u2019avoir sollicit\u00e9 une salari\u00e9e pendant son arr\u00eat maladie lui ouvrait droit \u00e0 r\u00e9paration sans qu\u2019elle n&rsquo;ait \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer avoir subi un pr\u00e9judice (n\u00b023-15.944). En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la salari\u00e9e s\u2019\u00e9tait trouv\u00e9e en arr\u00eat maladie entre 2014 et 2015. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":25572,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites-en-droit-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25574\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}